Divide escalates between young, older residents on development

For the better part of the past year, some young homeowners in East Lawrence held their tongues while neighborhood opposition to a planned development raged around them.

No more.

Now, a small but increasingly vocal group of 20-something residents have decided to take on what they feel are deep-seated views that change is bad and that making East Lawrence more urban won't fly.

They're pro-development, unconcerned with increased traffic and welcoming developer Bo Harris' plan to transform a historic East Lawrence district into a mix of residential and commercial development.

"We're far less concerned with traffic and density," said homeowner Shannon Hodges, 27.

But some longtime East Lawrence residents and property owners view their younger neighbors as naÃive and predict the neighborhood's relative newcomers will move on once the development increases both traffic and property taxes.

From left are Ashley Winters, her husband, Benjamin, Shannon Hodges and her husband, Isaias Izquierdo. These couples and other homeowners in East Lawrence have become more active in the neighborhood association and within the neighborhood, attending meetings and making their opinions known. But their interest in pro-growth development has met resistance from other residents.

Proudfoot helped organize the Old East Lawrence Preservation Alliance to lobby for changes to Harris' development plan near Eighth and Pennsylvania streets. She said young people in the neighborhood don't oppose property tax increases because they'll be gone before they get too high to afford.

"A lot of people are of that mindset," she said. "But that means they're willing to move on when they get that high."

Mark Kaplan, a member of the preservation alliance, said many of the younger homeowners - people who have moved to the area in the past few years - have a stake in the neighborhood only because of the Harris project.

But Benjamin Winters, 27, said that perception is just not true, and many young residents are here to stay. Winters lives a block from the proposed Harris residential and retail development.

"There does seem to be a fear by some that the young'uns don't respect history, don't respect the historical aspects of the neighborhood, and that we're only interested in flipping the houses here to turn a profit," Winters said. "It's ludicrous. And it's offensive."

'Hairy meetings'

The conflict has come to a head in recent East Lawrence meetings. Hodges and others described them as screaming matches.

Neighborhood association president Janet Good has found herself in the middle of the squabble.

Many of the concerns come from longtime residents who have seen young faces come and go.

"There's a sense of, 'Let's see who's in it for the long haul,'" Good said.

The worries that property in the neighborhood will be flipped or that owners will become long-distance landlords is real, but Good said young people willing to fix up property well and then sell it improves the neighborhood in its own way.

Good said she's taken some heat for defending the younger homeowners.

"I've gotten in a lot of trouble saying, 'These are young people, their points are valid, and they're going to be here long after the old guard is gone,'" she said.

Contradictions

Winters and his wife, Ashley, have lived in the neighborhood since 2002 but just recently became involved in the neighborhood association after fliers and surveys that were slipped in their mailbox opened their eyes to growing opposition to Harris' project, they said.

A shelter for old buses now occupies part of the 800 block of Pennsylvania.

Isaias Izquierdo, 27, lives just blocks away and expressed the same confusion about why some neighbors oppose the project.

"The reasons that they give don't make much sense to me," Izquierdo said.

Izquierdo and others said they saw contradictions in arguments made by those who wanted the development stopped or changed drastically. They say commercial space in the development will remain empty, yet they lament additional traffic the new commerce would bring. They say the expensive, one-bedroom lofts and apartments aren't family-friendly, yet they voice concern over New York School down the street becoming overcrowded with new kids.

Benjamin Winters said there was one simple reason for all of the opposition.

"The overarching fear of change," he said.

When Good and the association began backing Proudfoot's splinter group, some younger residents said they were hesitant to speak up because they were in the minority.

But after a recent Journal-World article, the Winterses decided to put out an open offer: Anyone who felt the way they did about development, about the neighborhood, should write them. They posted an e-mail address on the newspaper's Web site.

Since then, the couple said, they've received a lot of response, most of it positive - more young people in support of development regardless of property taxes or density. Other responses have been negative, some profanity-strewn, from longtime neighbors.

Doing it right

Resident John Myers said the younger folks who support the development don't understand that many in the neighborhood have battled for compromises in the Harris project.

"Basically, they don't know exactly what's going on," Myers said. "I think they get the impression that we're totally against development. That's not it at all."

Rather, Myers said, older folks in the neighborhood simply want the image of the neighborhood preserved - they want to grow, just not in the drastic direction they perceived the Harris project would take them.

"We're fine with development. We just want to make sure it's done right," he said.

But after nasty e-mails and other kinds of neighborhood pressure - real or perceived - some younger residents said the East Lawrence establishment view them as meddlers, property flippers, people who want to make a buck off a fixed-up starter home and leave.

"We have a lot of questions as to where that sentiment would come from," Hodges said. "Those people who make those assumptions don't know us."

Old East Lawrence has always been open to mixed use development at least for the last ten years. Inflated property values and taxes are not good for attracting new employers to Lawrence. Employers that might be willing to pay upscale
wages would continue to look at KC/JOCO metro.

Ultimately if gas prices keep moving up commuting will not be attractive and the value of property could begin to fall if commuters decide to move closer to work. That potentially would put a lot more houses on a market that relatively speaking is flooded. There was a time not so long ago that most any house that hit the market was sold in 24 hours...not anymore.

Thank you, Lawrence Journal World, for publishing this article. Only one problem with this story. I'm in my 50s, my wife late 40s and we are in total agreement with the younger people quoted in this article. We've been in East Lawrence for 12 years and have no intention of moving. This is not totally about young vs. old. It's more about making East Lawrence a livable community space where kids are safe to play outside and people don't feel unique in displaying pride in ownership of their property.

Personally, when I walk through the bus barn area and the blight that surrounds it, I think, surely, we can do better than this.

Personally, I find East Lawrence to be a refreshing change from the cheap, plastic, short-term profiteering that characterizes most "developer-think." One thing that made East Lawrence attractive to such types to begin with was the presence of "old hippies" who preserved the deteriorating homes and made the area attractive to young home buyers in the first place. Sure, there's plenty of room for improvements in East Lawrence, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water and don't diss the people that preserved the place to begin with.

In Maine, Portland I think, they subsidize artist-types who want to move into old neighborhoods and make them attractive again. So, right-winger know-it-alls, there are tools in the world other than bombs, bulldozers, and prisons. Oh yes, it's true.

At some point, the right-wingers who love to diss people in these forums are going to be shut up by the disasters created by their bone-headed leaders.

REgarding peak oil -- how come the electric car, which could cruise at 75 mph and had a range of 250 miles, was trashed in the early '90s? So greedy bastards in the oil business could shove 3.00 gas down our throats. I'm sure it will continue to go up. Oil as a fuel is simply a bad idea that needs to go away. This same mentality is typical of so-called "developers" as well. That's why sub-divisions are full of of ticky-tacky $300,000 houses.

There is a very good chance that the bus barn will be history
with or without a Harris Project possibly within the next 12 months or so.

Even if Harris has to give a little on the numbers it will still be a plus for east lawrence. Harris has been working with East Lawrence for sometime now. If Harris backs out perhaps Tenants to Homeowners can acquire some of that property. FYI... TTH builds high quality energy efficient homes.

Once again east lawrnce has always been open to commercial/ mixed use evidenced by progress in the warehouse area and other locations. They have always felt it is healthy for the neighborhood. If someone is portraying the neighborhood as villans I say they are wrong.

As someone who walks these streets each evening with my dog I must disagree that homes are always taken care of. Preserving deteriorating homes and making them attractive to young home buyers? I'd hope that was the norm, but I beg to differ.

The mix of commercial and residential has its good points and they mix of the old hippies and the new guard is what's needed.

Commerical and residential are needed in order to provide the possibility of people actually walking or riding bikes to work instead of driving. Commercial neighbors are more apt to have a vested interest in the neighborhood around them. And the neighborhood will do the same. For so many years that is what drew people to Strawberry Hill has immigrants could walk down to the bottoms for work in the meat packing plants while their families could thrive at home raising children and walking to church. Cars were a luxury, not a necessity.

Then the deterioation set in when the plants closed, and the homes were sold off as children and grandchildren "got out" for suburbia. Again, no place to work, turned in to "not a good place to live.

The old hippies, myself included, could use some new ideas, some new blood, to make sure the vision is carried on long after we're gone. I just heard on TV that approx 80 "baby boomer" turn 60 every day. Time we started to teach the new guard, and learn something from them.

East Lawrence is a viable community with lots of great old homes that have historic value as well as charm.

Oh and I remember my grandmother from North Lawrence working in the Stokely Van Camp Pork and Bean plant over there. And I also remember when the popcorn plant burn down. Several family friends and relatives worked there.

She earned enough to buy a house in North Lawrence. Thus being the first woman landowner in our family - ever.

merrill is at it again...
It should be pretty clear how his brain works. If not, here goes:

All of the populace should be controlled by the government = SOCIALISM

Growth = bad

New housing = bad

Oil companies = bad

Commuters = environmental terrorists, and they should be banished from this utopia forever

Crumbling streets = good. Excellent traffic calmers

Blue collar factories = good place for unskilled (union?) employees to earn enforced living wage. Also easier to brainwash and control...

I'm sure merrill is dismayed that the younger east siders are not buying the progressive crap and can see the hypocrisy and contradiction in the words of the elite, enlightened set.

It does not matter in the slightest who has been there longer, or what the intentions are of the dwellers who own and pay taxes on their properties. Even if it is a flip, the property is left better than found. But, maybe some on the east side want the area to continue to look the way it has and does for many years to come. Could even be the same complainers who cry about how east Lawrence is ignored.

No wonder the city is shrinking, oppotunities are few, if any, and the silent majority are anxiously awaiting a big change in direction.

What seems to be lost (ignored?) in this article is that the "old guard" has reached a tentative agreement with Harris on a design that is clearly better than the original one.

So, far from standing in the way of this development, they have actively sought to make it better for the neighborhood (including the "new guard,") and likely better for Harris and his new tentants as well.

Keep up the good work Winters/Hodges/Izquierdo. It is about time profressive voices are tamed.

John Myers said, "We're fine with development. We just want to make sure it's done right." If that is the case, then folks should support the Krause request so that they can operate their business in the "done right" way.

Marion - I agree with you as to why someone would slip in a link about eminent domain. I am not aware of that tool being used/proposed for any of the development/redevelopment in E Lawrence either, but you are wrong about the Kansas Speedway and other recent projects. In fact, Lawrence continues to benefit economically because of the Kansas Speedway project.

"If that is the case, then folks should support the Krause request so that they can operate their business in the "done right" way."

They flouted zoning regulation to open a restaurant in a residential neighborhood. I think most of the neighborhood would support their restaurant, but putting the cart before the horse as they did is hardly doing it the "right way."

"In fact, Lawrence continues to benefit economically because of the Kansas Speedway project."

The former owners of that private property, who were forced off of their land for the benefit of the new owners of the still private property, weren't allowed to benefit.

If NASCAR and Nebraska Furniture Mart (aka Warren Buffet) want to acquire private property for their business ventures, let them buy it on the open market like everyone else.

I heard one issue was that Bo Harris does not want people in East Lawrence to have the ability to paint their homes anything but white or hues os white, because it will somehow affect his project and the look.
Seems to me Bo is heading towards taking people's homes down the road.

So people aren't allowed to correct their mistakes by trying to do things the right way? Get over it.

Show me examples of where the few land owners who had their land condemned aren't doing better now? Interestingly, the state legislature is the body that approved that taking...they seem to think they are better at deciding who gets to take land and who does not than local governing bodies.

""The reasons that they give don't make much sense to me," Izquierdo said.

Izquierdo and others said they saw contradictions in arguments made by those who wanted the development stopped or changed drastically. They say commercial space in the development will remain empty, yet they lament additional traffic the new commerce would bring. They say the expensive, one-bedroom lofts and apartments aren't family-friendly, yet they voice concern over New York School down the street becoming overcrowded with new kids."

That is so true. My guess is the reason their arguments don't make sense, the reason they are self-contradicting, is because they are hiding their real reason for opposing the project: they see themselves as standing up to the "man," standing in the way of some rich developer making even more money. It is called envy.

I've said on this forum that I think the rezoning for the restaurant should be approved. But the Krauses have done things the "right way" only after getting caught doing it the wrong way and failing to find a suitable location to their liking elsewhere. Give them the rezoning, but don't rewrite history in the process.

"Show me examples of where the few land owners who had their land condemned aren't doing better now?"

Just compare the prices they were paid for that land and the current valuation of it. Nuff said.

"Interestingly, the state legislature is the body that approved that taking"

Yep, and the campaign contributions they got from well-financed special interests had nothing to do with it, right?

Again, I try to stay out of this conversation as much as possible, but what the heck is proudfoot talking about. I really wonder if we do live in the same neighborhood. There is no traffic in this area. Whether it is 8:00 in the morning or 5:00 at night, there are hardly ever any cars. Yes, the Harris project is going to add more cars, but do you really think adding the 20 some units she is fighting is really going to make that much of a difference. NO.

As for increased property values I understand her concern. The property tax burden on people with fixed income can be daunting. Therefore, she should shift her focus and energy from trying to keep MY property value down, to lobbying government to decrease the property tax burden on seniors. She still gets to be a royal pain in the government's behind, it just won't end up effecting my resale value nor the individual property rights of the project's owner.

Bozo, why would I oppose this development? It is privately funded, and will improve the neighborhood. You and your buds would rather see the city buy the land and sell it for cheap to people who cannot afford to maintain their properties, thereby preserving the "ambience of the unkept" that is so prevalent in East Lawrence.

I've owned and run a public web discussion board for seven years and as of this a.m. it has 8,626 subscribers. It has nothing to do with the city of Lawrence nor this topic/issue, but what it does have in common is that every so often a certain discussion gets so totally out of whack with the subject matter that the discussion loses its focus. Mind numbing personal pot shots get taken by anonymous users, and people are dismayed at the calamity that ensues and ultimately leave. Replayed on thousands of forums daily on the internet, this one included.

Paint colors, NASCAR, Eminent Domain, Nebraska Furniture Mart and electrical cars. Weeeeee. Pass the medication, aliens are about to land and take over East Lawrence. Their first order of business is an Applebee's across from Hobbs Park for visiting alien species. How about keeping this discussion focused on the matter at hand?

Everyone is welcome to their opinion and to be respected for it if there's some thought put behind it. You're better off stating it intelligently than throwing darts from the dark. It's a touchy subject, but unless you start attending community meetings, voting and stating your voice in a reasonable matter--paying attention--you're just, as someone stated on my forum, blowing smoke up another person's arse out here.

I haven't been very good about attending these meetings in the past, but that's going to change, and with me I'm inviting people I feel do represent the neighborhood. See you at next Wednesday's City Planning Commission. I'll be the one stating my favor of the Krause rezoning request if allowed to speak.

Those who are nostalgic for the 60's (or the 90's for that matter) and are trying to keep Lawrence firmly in the past are doomed to be disappointed and defeated. The physically old, or young in body but old at heart, invariably look to the past as some kind of ideal and romantic existence. But the past wasn't so glorious, the future not so awful, and change is not so easily avoided. More poignantly the costs to try and prevent change are very high.

These doddering old fools who remember they used to pay a quarter/gallon for gas completely forget they made $4,000/year and that as a percentage of income Lawrencian's pay less for energy today than they did in the 70s. While they remember with great fondness the economic powerhouse of the time called Woolworth's, they rail against current success that is Walmart.

These relics of the past can't imagine how "folks these days" can afford to commute to their job and completely miss the current reality that cars "these days" can get 40 miles/gallon, the Interweb allows some to work from home several days a week, or a host of other "new fangled" technologies that were not available "in the good ole days".

Instead of learning lessons from the past (like centrally planned economies with heavily taxed populations do less well than the converse), they attempt to linearly extrapolate from the past to predict dire futures for any "new fangled" change or growth that is proposed. Sadly they are not only incapable of honestly evaluating the past but also of understanding the current realities, not just in Lawrence but in the rest of world.

While we can laugh at them as they shout "hey you kids get off my lawn" or be embarrassed as they drool on themselves, it is harder to ignore these grumpy old men and women when are on the Lawrence City and Traffic Safety Kommissions and have the power to temporarily prevent us from moving into the present, let alone the future.

Marion - you should have been compensated at the rate of 125 %, at least for the KCK piece (perhaps better if you negotiated well). I know it is a personal and emotional issue, but also an important tool to have in the economic development tool box - but I don't expect you to agree with that either.

If eminent domain is to be used to take property for anything but a public use, the law should require compensation of at least 200% of assessed value. NASCAR and Nebraska Furniture could have easily afforded that.

Once again the "young couples" can't seem to get their facts straight. Senor Izquierdo's contradictions are apparently made up by himself. No one in OELPA has ever voiced concerns about NY school overcrowding. Au contraire. I wish you upstarts would quit putting words in our mouths and assigning us positions we neither profess nor subscribe to.
Congratulations on getting 20 other of your mind set (same degree of brain washing) to take a stand. Maybe you can all sign a "questionnaire". I am sure it's quite a namby-pamby little group.. The level of confusion must be fairly pervasive since one of the organizers of your soap opera actually voices support for the compromise which OELPA essentially engendered while at the same time "dissing" the group. With this kind of "double think" pattern it might be a good idea to consult with a mental health professional. Schizophrenia can be controlled it is caught early enough. Hopefully it won't prove contagious to the rest of the group otherwise you will all be blathering like a bunch of Mexican whorehouse parrots and forcing us to waste valuable time responding to this crap.
And who made this an young/old confrontation? In my day the youth were the revolutionaries and in this case the rolls seem to be reversed. How about cancerous growth verses intelligent design or does that not fit into your "Kansas is only 6,000 years old" mentality? And why do I get the creepy feeling you'll are a bunch of republican crusaders trying to turn this side of town into a mess just like your bungling King George has done to the middle east. Go west youngins and jog into the sunset with Jim Ryan. No pasaran aqui!

If by "ruin the Community" you mean increasing the supply of new housing in the most expensive housing market in Kansas, expanding the source of much needed real estate taxes, and providing families with homes, I see your point.

"Once again the "young couples" can't seem to get their facts straight. Senor Izquierdo's contradictions are apparently made up by himself. No one in OELPA has ever voiced concerns about NY school overcrowding. Au contraire. I wish you upstarts would quit putting words in our mouths and assigning us positions we neither profess nor subscribe to." - Eastlawrencian

Well, actually, Nicolette Proudfoot's (president of OELPA) daughter stood before the City Commission on August 8th and ranted, among other contradictory arguments, about how this development was going to overcrowd NY school. I believe the comments were something to the effect of "we have already lost East Heights school, and now, what are we doing to do if we end up with 40-60 kids per class at NY?"

"And why do I get the creepy feeling you'll are a bunch of republican crusaders trying to turn this side of town into a mess just like your bungling King George has done to the middle east"- Eastlawrencian

Um, actually I have no idea why you would get that creepy feeling. Seems like a totally unrelated and baseless assumption (not to mention, totally inaccurate)- nice try though, "Mr. Nelson Diamond".

If you read the article again, and I assume you will, Mr. Izquierdo never claims that anybody from the OELPA said anything. He simply identified the criticisms levied against the project by those who oppose it (in general) and pointed out that the arguments contradict themselves.

Now, I'd like to respond to some pretty nasty things you've said about me in past blogs, only recently updated and not checked by me in quite some time.

First, You mention a petition that is signed by 70 people. I counted 137 on the City Commission's website PDF of it. Of course, there are a few double signers on there, so who knows how accurate that number is.

Next, you say "This document is the basis of the compromise which "fundamental" supports." Can you point out where I said that I support this compromise? I've checked all my posts, and I didn't see where I mentioned my support for the compromise. Talk about putting words into one's mouth (blog).

Next, and this is a general comment concerning your blogging style, your vitriolic diatribes do not do your viewpoint any favors, as you are taken much less seriously by anybody whose opinion you would sway by uttering these baseless personal attacks. You gripe about my comments about Ms. Proudfoot, but the next words out of your keyboard are worse than anything I have ever written or said about you or anybody who disagrees with me. The bad taste in my mouth is my own venom? Seriously, that's not physiologically possible. I had those glands removed when I was 8.

You mention that Vice Mayor Hack didn't have the courtesy to respond to your request to sit down with OELPA to discuss the merits of your compromise, and this failure (along with what seems to be centuries of horrific war crimes and other xenocidal actions) leads you to decry any "calling out" that she may have done at the meeting because she is obviously in the pocket of developers. Well, you mention that Mayor Amix was the only one who had the decency to actually sit down with you. What you fail to mention is that Comissioner Schauner (who, in your opinion, "gets it") also declined your invitation. Somehow he, along with Comissioners Highberger and Rundle avoid your own personal damnation. Pity Vice Mayor Hack wasn't afforded the same courtesy.

Next, you wrote "Congratulations on getting 20 other of your mind set (same degree of brain washing) to take a stand." I'm sure they (whomever they are) appreciate your kudos, however sarcastically given, but I must take issue with your assertion that anybody who would agree with their point of view is "brainwashed." I cannot understand why mere disagreement on this subject would lead you to believe that a whole group of people is brainwashed. Shouldn't opinion be given its proper due without assuming the giver is brainwashed? I have afforded you that courtesy, and I wish you would do the same for me.

Interesting that so many renters have signed this petition. Nothing against people who rent, however it seems like one of the concerns of ELNA noted in this article is that young people might become "long distance landlords". Seems like these groups use the tenants of these "long distance landlords" when it suits their agenda, then disses the landlords when it doesn't fit their agenda.

i used to live in lawrence, for many many years.
i used to live in east lawrence, for many years.
i don't think any of you are really from east lawrence, or even lawrence, possibly not even kansas.
i think you are all in some 5th grade class somewhere in arkansas. very little knowledge of logic, rhetoric, or grammar by the lot of you.

"Interesting that so many renters have signed this petition. Nothing against people who rent, however it seems like one of the concerns of ELNA noted in this article is that young people might become "long distance landlords". Seems like these groups use the tenants of these "long distance landlords" when it suits their agenda, then disses the landlords when it doesn't fit their agenda."

It's hard to find the owner in communal living arrangements. Thanks for posting the petition links, fundamental.

By my count, there were 136 names on that petition (one name was on there twice, so I subtracted one). There were 7 names listed as "unknown" regarding their owner/renter status. Of the remaining 129 names, 42 were listed as renters. By my calculations, that's about 32.5% of the named individuals that are renters. I'm not saying anything about renters vs. owners here, I just think it's interesting.

All I have to say is WTH is enforcer, sybil, loislanelovesclark, janeb, antimarion, whiteoleander,cherie_graves and whomever else enforcer might be at the moment? Anyone care to add to the list of illegitamate folks posting as an alias of enforcer?

Oh there you go again No Fun Just Mental. You said: "Now, I'd like to respond to some pretty nasty things you've said about me in past blogs, only recently updated and not checked by me in quite some time.
First, You mention a petition that is signed by 70 people."
Are you just exagerating again? How is that a nasty thing? Do you consider these 70 HOME OWNERS nasty??? And thanks so much for keeping track of our petitions! We lost count!
In a previous comment on August 8th 12:37 p.m. you saidL "The majority of people in the neighborhood support this compromise" and presuming that you are such a follower i assumed you were one of them.
And I recall that you mentioned we are too loud. well we will get louder and louder untill you won't need a hearing aid.

I am coming to this discussion a bit late, but I hope that someone might still be checking this post. I have a question for the designers of the "compromise" plan. I have seen Harris' plan and I have seen the sketch for the compromise plan. Unfortunately, the compromise plan doesn't come with a 60 page document that describe all the benefits/details of the plan. Having kept abreast of these issues from a distance I know that past arguments against Harris' have included density and building heights, parking and traffic. According to the sketch of the compromise plan it seems that the arguments against the high density and building heights are no longer an issue as the compromise sketch includes one builiding height equivalent to that of the Poehler building and that there are the same number of units in Harris' plan as there are in the compromise. With that being said I would like to know what the OELPA and the ELNA say are the benefits of the compromise plan over Harris' original plans.